"Lucky Stiff Blackjack" Live @ 7 Cedars
http://casinogambling.about.com/od/blackjack/a/bjbust.htm
dealer busts when showing:
2 - 35%
3 - 37%
4 - 40%
5 - 42%
6 - 42%
7 - 26%
8 - 24%
9 - 23%
10 - 23%
A - 17%
so looks like hit vs the ace only if you stiff bet is even to your original wager.
EDIT: this cant be correct since you must in fact take the size of the wager bet on the hand...hmmmm interesting.
Quote: CRMousseauI can answer this one
Thanks Charles, I was hopeful the expert would step in....please correct me if I have misstated any of the previous facts.
Quote: ParadigmThanks Charles, I was hopeful the expert would step in....please correct me if I have misstated any of the previous facts.
Everything else looks absolutely correct to me. And congratulations on getting the game in this far. I wish you nothing but success, and like the Wizard said, you got this far, which is already far ahead of the game.
You say to stand on 16 vs 9, discount gambling says to hit 16 vs 9 so it must be a very close play.Quote: ParadigmThe non-basic BJ strategy moves to minimize the Lucky Stiff HE on a "hit soft 17" set of rules is as follows (per our report from Charles Mousseau):
1) Stand on a hard 12 vs. a 3
2) Stand on a hard 12 that is not a T-2 vs. a 2
3) Stand on a hard 15 vs. T
4) Stand on a hard 16 vs. a 9 or T
The HE rises by 0.3% - 0.4% from the base 6 deck house edge of 4.05% if these adjustments to basic strategy are not followed. However, following these changes gives up 0.1% - 0.2% on your main BJ wager. Otherwise you may want to change BS in these 5 situations (out of 360 possible beginning hands).
If your base wager is at least twice the size of your Lucky Stiff wager, correct strategy to minimize the HE over all all your bets will be to play basic strategy.
Other than hard core BJ players (which probably aren't playing any side bets to begin with), 99% of players will simply play basic strategy and be looking at a slightly higher 4.35% to 4.45% HE on Lucky Stiff. Of course that assumes that they are playing basic strategy to start which is not always a reasonable assumption.
Quote: CRMousseauI can answer this one.
In regular blackjack, if you traded a 2% extra chance of pushing for a 1% extra chance of winning and a 1% extra chance of losing, it would net break even.
On the lucky stiff wager, this would obviously be much to your advantage, since that 1% extra chance of winning pays at greater than even money.
To give an example of 16 vs 10 from an infinite deck model:
Standing:
Win: 22.98%
Lose: 77.02%
Push: 0%
Hitting:
Win: 20.05%
Lose: 74.03%
Push: 5.92%
In regular blackjack, the results are +1 for win, 0 for push and -1 for loss. This gives:
Standing: -54.04%
Hitting: -53.98%
... so here you can see that hitting is marginally better.
However, when wins pay 5:1, and your EV = (5 * %WIN - %LOSS), the fact that you're likelier to win the hand (versus non-wins) now makes standing correct, to wit:
Standing: +37.87%
Hitting: +26.20%
Long story short: the changes are a result of the increased value of winning the hand at any cost; if a push was as bad as a loss, you'd naturally stand on more stiffs. Well, the Lucky Stiff rule makes the pushes 5 times closer to being as bad as a loss, so a lot of that reflects in the basic strategy here.
And just to be finicky, I have to point out that my findings for AP play were about 1/20th, not 1/100th. 75% pen on 6 and 8 deck shoes, perfect use of a count (1 unit with any edge, 0 units with no edge) and no count-based adjustments to play strategy yielded an overall player edge of 0.09% - 0.15%, which I put relative to a 2-3% range in regular blackjack under similar conditions.
Thanks a lot CRMousseau, that was the explanation I was looking for!
Now all that's left is to get it to Vegas before my next trip... Main Street or California or Mirage would be nice. ;-)
Quote: CRMousseau
And just to be finicky, I have to point out that my findings for AP play were about 1/20th, not 1/100th. 75% pen on 6 and 8 deck shoes, perfect use of a count (1 unit with any edge, 0 units with no edge) and no count-based adjustments to play strategy yielded an overall player edge of 0.09% - 0.15%, which I put relative to a 2-3% range in regular blackjack under similar conditions.
Thanks for correcting my AP vulnerability mistake and for your thorough explanation of the basic strategy changes, Charles.
And let me thank ALL of you who have taken the time to review the Lucky Stiff bet and offer your much valued opinions and/or well wishes.
Quote: ParadigmI believe H17 is the norm in WA as well so I imagine all Lucky Stiff tables will be H17
I've yet to see a S17 game in WA state. I haven't played everywhere, probably not even 25% of the casinos (card rooms + tribal), but I would seriously doubt they exist it all.
The table drop and level of player participation in the side bet were well within the property's expectations, but the hold was not.
It would have been great to get a little bit more "runway" with the install so that the long term math could have taken over, but you don't always get what you want in this business.
Lucky & I were pleased with the reports of player & dealer acceptance of the game at 7 Cedars and are currently looking for a longer term trial opportunity in WA.
Sorry to hear this, but it sounds like you're still quite optimistic, still congratulate you!Quote: ParadigmUnfortunately our initial installation of Lucky Stiff ran into some bad variance and due to the resulting overall poor hold percentages during the 35 days of operations, the game was removed.
The table drop and level of player participation in the side bet were well within the property's expectations, but the hold was not.
Lucky Stiff is a BJ side bet, isn't it? How did you separate the hold of the main from the hold of the side bet? Did U have two BJ tables next to each other to make the comparison?
Unfortunately it is very difficult to separate the hold as it relates to the main game vs. the side bet without some fairly labor intensive analysis which typically is not done. They look at the overall hold on the table in comparison to their historical hold before the side bet was installed and draw comparisons from there.
Quote: ParadigmYes, Lucky Stiff is a BJ Side Bet.
Unfortunately it is very difficult to separate the hold as it relates to the main game vs. the side bet without some fairly labor intensive analysis which typically is not done. They look at the overall hold on the table in comparison to their historical hold before the side bet was installed and draw comparisons from there.
They do not appeared to have given this bet much of a trial... how long was the bet on trial?
Quote: ParadigmUnfortunately our initial installation of Lucky Stiff ran into some bad variance and due to the resulting overall poor hold percentages during the 35 days of operations, the game was removed.
This must be your take on the issue as the game's creator, and this is fully understandable.
But it can't be the full story, can it? No casino could possibly be that stupid. If the game performed as expected in all terms except in terms of variance, you don't remove it. [Morbo]YOU CANNOT CONTROL A GIVEN VARIANCE! THAT IS THE NATURE OF VARIANCE![/Morbo]
So there must be more to it. However, a part of me is willing to believe a casino might actually be that stupid.
Quote: McDemonThey do not appeared to have given this bet much of a trial... how long was the bet on trial?
35 Days
Quote: Paradigm35 Days
That's a joke, and not a very good one, 35 days, whats the point it trialing it? If it was that bad, surely it would never have made it to trial. Shows exactly some of the clowns running casinos..Bad luck Lucky, let this experience spurn you on to better things..
Quote: McDemonThat's a joke, and not a very good one, 35 days, whats the point it trialing it? If it was that bad, surely it would never have made it to trial. Shows exactly some of the clowns running casinos..Bad luck Lucky, let this experience spurn you on to better things..
Thanks for the encouragement, McDemon. Paradigm and I are disappointed by the decision but not discouraged. My only concern going in was the 'action' the game would receive, knowing that the performance would take care of itself over time if players accepted and liked the game. And they did. This business is full of surprises, and like you, I was taken aback by the news that the property was closing a new game that had so quickly caught on with its patrons. Both the drop and overall participation on the side bet were excellent. Go figure.
Quote: UCivanHow about the dealers? ... Does Lucky Stiff let them make more tips?
Good point, UCivan. I designed the game to be 'dealer friendly' and inviting for players to make their tips on the side bet, which has a very decent hit rate and easy and appealing payout structure. I don't know how the tokes added up in actual play, but according to reports I received, the dealers liked the game and found it easy to deal.
Quote: LuckyHow about the dealers? ... Does Lucky Stiff let them make more tips?
Good point, UCivan. I designed the game to be 'dealer friendly' and inviting for players to make their tips on the side bet, which has a very decent hit rate and easy and appealing payout structure. I don't know how the tokes added up in actual play, but according to reports I received, the dealers liked the game and found it easy to deal.
The mind boggles!!
Here is my 2 cents. Players tip when they are lucky, not when they feel they themselves are skillful. Side bets like Lucky Lucky, Royal Match require no skills, so most players that win would reward dealers with tips. It seems to me Lucky Stiff may not earn dealer any tips. First of all, getting the initial "Lucky Stiff" is not real lucky, then hitting good cards by the players is considered to be players own efforts. Again, no tips. I don't think dealers were on your side even though they "said" to like the game - no one liked to say anything negative. No money no honey.Quote: UCivanDoes Lucky Stiff let them make more tips? In tribal casinos, dealers and their comradeship are very powerful.
Quote: ParadigmThe table drop and level of player participation in the side bet were well within the property's expectations, but the hold was not.
Is there a way to determine why the hold is not as good as Blackjack w/out side bets or alternative Blackjack games with side bets? I don't really understand the concept of "hold" so I would be curious to see if you have thoughts why it wasn't achieving.
Quote: 21RevolutionIs there a way to determine why the hold is not as good as Blackjack w/out side bets or alternative Blackjack games with side bets? I don't really understand the concept of "hold" so I would be curious to see if you have thoughts why it wasn't achieving.
The concept of hold is an odd one for sure. It is basically a mix of house edge and time at the table because casinos cannot record every single wager. Higher house edge = generally more hold. Staying longer at the table = generally more hold.
Hold is defined as: Total Table Win/Total Table Buy-ins
Simple Examples:
You are a $25 flat-bet blackjack player with a 1% house edge. You buy-in for $300 and play for 3 hours (200 hands). Your expected loss would be 200 x $25 x 0.01 = $50. So the expected hold from your play would be $50/$300 = 16.67%. If your actual result was that you won $40, then the actual hold would be -$40/$300 = -13.33%. If you would have lost your entire buy-in and left the table, then the hold would be $300/$300 = 100%
You are a $5 ante UTH player that gives up 5% ante to the house due to you checking preflop a little too much. You buy in for $200 and play for 4 hours (150 hands). Your expected loss would be $5 x 150 x 0.05 = $37.5. So the expected hold from your play would be $37.5/$200 = 18.75%.
For blackjack (depending on casino/region), the target for hold may vary anywhere from the low to high teens.
In this particular case, one possible problem was that the edge of the side bet wasn't quite enough to overcome the extra time it took to resolve it. However, I strongly think it easily could be a case of bad variance. If you look at various state gaming statistics (Missouri is a nice, internet friendly example), particular table games easily swing +/- 5% in any given month in overall casino hold.
Quote: 21RevolutionIs there a way to determine why the hold is not as good as Blackjack w/out side bets or alternative Blackjack games with side bets? I don't really understand the concept of "hold" so I would be curious to see if you have thoughts why it wasn't achieving.
Unfortunately I can't go into specifics on hold numbers, etc. as the casino's numbers are very sensitive information.
We are confident based on what was observed that the participation rate was great. The hold issue will take care of itself as the 4% House Edge combined with the participation rate Lucky Stiff was achieving will result in significant increase in the table win.
While the table "Hold" is a staple of a casino evaluating current and new table games, what they really care about is how much did the table win. You can tell from Tring's analysis above, there are many factors that affect the hold percentage......but there is only one answer when it comes to the question "Did this table win more per open hour than that table".
Bottom line is that while Lucky Stiff was popular and the drop on the table as well as the participation in the side bet were good, the win for the trial was not good due to some bad variance.....the players just got lucky either at the main BJ bet or at the Lucky Stiff side bet, the mix of where the loss is mostly to blame is a tough one to figure out without spending lots of time and frankly doesn't really matter provided the math is correct. In the long term, the math will drive the win results.
I am very confident that Lucky Stiff will be back in play at another property before the year is out and given time (and a little less bad variance to start the trial) will prove to be a bet that adds to the net win of the BJ table it is placed on in a significant way.
Quote: ParadigmUnfortunately I can't go into specifics on hold numbers, etc. as the casino's numbers are very sensitive information.
We are confident based on what was observed that the participation rate was great. The hold issue will take care of itself as the 4% House Edge combined with the participation rate Lucky Stiff was achieving will result in significant increase in the table win.
While the table "Hold" is a staple of a casino evaluating current and new table games, what they really care about is how much did the table win. You can tell from Tring's analysis above, there are many factors that affect the hold percentage......but there is only one answer when it comes to the question "Did this table win more per open hour than that table".
Bottom line is that while Lucky Stiff was popular and the drop on the table as well as the participation in the side bet were good, the win for the trial was not good due to some bad variance.....the players just got lucky either at the main BJ bet or at the Lucky Stiff side bet, the mix of where the loss is mostly to blame is a tough one to figure out without spending lots of time and frankly doesn't really matter provided the math is correct. In the long term, the math will drive the win results.
I am very confident that Lucky Stiff will be back in play at another property before the year is out and given time (and a little less bad variance to start the trial) will prove to be a bet that adds to the net win of the BJ table it is placed on in a significant way.
Just shows how amateurish casino bosses can be..if they are doing money on a 4% House edge, they should be grateful, the players like to win and will be back for more, they should think of their losses as marketing, its not like the casino is never opening again.
Quote: McDemonJust shows how amateurish casino bosses can be..if they are doing money on a 4% House edge, they should be grateful, the players like to win and will be back for more, they should think of their losses as marketing, its not like the casino is never opening again.
I want to reiterate, Lucky and I are thankful that management put Lucky Stiff on their floor.
It is easy to take shots at management from "this side of the fence", but as some have said in the thread before, we don't have access to all the information that goes into a decision. This trial was a step in the process and much was learned from the way players & dealers reacted to Lucky Stiff.
Quote: ParadigmI want to reiterate, Lucky and I are thankful that management put Lucky Stiff on their floor.
It is easy to take shots at management from "this side of the fence", but as some have said in the thread before, we don't have access to all the information that goes into a decision. This trial was a step in the process and much was learned from the way players & dealers reacted to Lucky Stiff.
I also want to say that I am personally impressed with the class and dignity with which you have handled the pulling of the game. Should I ever come to a casino that has that game, I will give it a little action for that reason alone.
The bad thing about a field trial or game intro for a BJ side bet is that it is often gets collateral damage when a table dumps, or when a team hits a table: the new side bet gets blamed, or at least is not absolved.
I've seen new side bets do well on CSM type BJ tables, as it receives protection from the CSM set up: No counters, lots of tourists, lots of side bet play - makes it look good!
Quote: ParadigmI want to reiterate, Lucky and I are thankful that management put Lucky Stiff on their floor.
It is easy to take shots at management from "this side of the fence", but as some have said in the thread before, we don't have access to all the information that goes into a decision. This trial was a step in the process and much was learned from the way players & dealers reacted to Lucky Stiff.
Did they give a reason, I mean without feedback, a failed trial is no use to anybody.
Quote: ParadigmI disagree.......observing live play for real money has incredible value.
yes of course that is true but they must have given a reason for the trial termination. They didn't like this, they didn't like that, something.
Does that mean you’re better off with a side bet that wins only when the player loses the main bet? Kind of like the bad beat concept? As a player, I like the idea of winning both bets, but it may be tricky to get past the casino management and still have players like it.
You say you like winning and losing both bets together (e.g. Even money on the main BJ bet & 5-1 on the Lucky Stiff side bet)........what I can tell you is that you are not alone :-).
The next time you play BJ, track how often your initial two cards are a hard 12-16 or BJ, 6/6, 7/7 or 8/8. Then track how often you beat the dealer with your non-paired, hard 12-16. From what I observed, Lucky Stiff did a pretty nice job of heightening the excitement of BJ.
